France condemns Trump claim armed civilians could have stopped 2015 Paris attack
84 replies, posted
Man, I understand the concept of letting-people-have-guns-saves-lives but I really don't think it's a solution. Nor anything to be proud about. I feel like having to shoot someone is an ultimate responsibility that we should work to minimize not make into some encourage status. It's not a good thing. It's a good thing you stopped the dude but probably not a good thing for you. I think people should have the right to defend themselves with lethal force and conceal carry, but I'd never encourage someone to put themselves in that position.
I'm not saying to go out and find trouble just so you can shoot people. It should be your last resort. I'm definitely not promoting people shooting people. I'm promoting the right to have the ability to defend yourself from evil. It is so easy to type on a keyboard and make a theory on how less guns = more peace but wait until it happens to you. You are going to wish you had a gun to defend yourself with.
It was a single terror attack in an nation where gun related homicide is extremely low. France has a statistic of .21 deaths per 100K people every year compared to our great amazing nation of 4.62. That is a increase of homicide rates by 2,100%. Add in the fact that the US is even more densely populated than France and you can see how large that number is.
Other nations rarely have any issues handling gun crimes, and tossing more guns into the mix is an idiotic idea to patch a very rare occurrence.
Maybe instead of having guns everywhere, fix your deep rooted poverty and race related issues?
I don't even have to worry about getting mugged, I don't even need one cause its safe af without guns here.
A week ago and a year ago in Canada, meanwhile we have these shootings far more common. Even if you combine all of Europe, Canada, and Australia (i.e. The Western World) we still have more mass shootings. Adjust per capita, we still have more. Lol, it absolutely is a uniquely American problem.
What's your alternative though?
The problem with modernity, as it fostered an densely populated, integrated, metropolitan society, is the idea that we can more strictly enforce social regulations in order to repress human tendencies towards violence and irrational behavior that threatens others. It's artificial though, you can't simultaneously have technology allowing us to cheaply mass produce weapons while also growing the state to better create a geographic bubble, where a part of the world isn't comparatively saturated with these goods.
If you insist on that, it's just an endless cycle and a money pit at that. These social regulations become more total in scope as enabled by technology and wealth, which is exactly what makes something like weapons plentiful and creates new ways for people to poke holes in artificial barriers created by regulation. This whack-a-mole into state growth is not desirable.
I would also dispute the idea this is an 'American' solution. We need to do away with this dichotomy where only Americans, owing to their vast space and historical settler/frontiersman culture, care about the intersection of negative liberty, property ownership, and living away from centers of state power (cities, et cetera). That's not an American ideal at all, that's a liberal and Western ideal. The European continent is a little different from the Anglosphere, but these are still middle class values that apply there and anywhere else free men who, come early modernity, conceived of themselves as citizens rather than subjects.
Since citizens have a right to own property, they have a right to arm themselves. This self-regulation is preferable to expanding the state to control for the uncontrollable human variable.
Wasn't it debunked that in the case of an organised attack, civilians carrying guns would actually change anything because the element of surprise would prevent them from drawing their gun on time to defend themselves?
ah yes because if the civilians had guns they would've turned in perfect synchronicity, organised into coordinated squads, outflanked the terrorists (helpfully labelled "PLEASE SHOOT ME I AM A TERRORIST) and taken them down in expertly laid fields of overlapping gunfire without catching anyone else in the crossfire
i think on his foreign visits they should take the human-orange hybrid to all the places he's mocked first, then everywhere he would like to go second
Are you allowed to go into a club with your gun in America? Won't there be a bouncer to stop you?
This is such a stupid meme and I wish it stopped being pro-gun posters' default go-to.
Yeah they don't follow laws, but they sure as fuck enjoy getting their weapons from people who do. In the US, they acquire them either from theft or from straw purchases. Compare with France where they have to be smuggled in from abroad. As a result, it's much cheaper and easier for criminals to arm themselves in the US than in France.
I really don't see what we should be envious about. If your solution to the occasional terrorist attack involves allowing every two-bit delinquent to get themselves a weapon in the process, I'm not sure you've done the math correctly.
Isn't the chance of dying in a gun-related accident much higher than dying, or even being injured, in a mass shooting? That alone is reason enough.
There's also the fact that gun ownership has been shown to result in an increase in suicide rates.
Hasn't research been done on this? I recall reading that 'good guys with guns' are very rarely able to stop mass shootings. Also, yeah, if you make it easier to acquire guns, criminals in general can get them more easily and petty criminals who would've otherwise decided that it would be too much effort or too risky to get a gun, would be able to get one.
Thank you Programmer, for presenting the absolute worst argument for less gun control.
Not as simple as that
I think you misunderstand, I'm not saying "more suicides are committed via firearms, thus firearms cause suicide". I'm referring to actual studies that have shown a strong link between gun ownership and suicide in general. Sure, it's not a proven causal link (what study ever is?) but that's still a rather strong indication of one.
It's more complicated than that. Suicidal thoughts can be fleeting and may end up lessened in the time it takes to fetch a rope and tie a noose or drive to a bridge. The same can't be said of simply reaching for a gun and pulling the trigger. It may also be less intimidating in terms of expected pain due to it being instantaneous. Gun shots to the head are also more lethal than other suicide means.
It's also stupid to assume that adding more guns to the mix might not make everything worse. How are civilians without guns supposed to know who are the terrorists? How is the police supposed to know? What is a civilan with a gun supposed to do when there are hundreds of people running around and it's basically utter chaos?
I don't know if you followed the Paris attacks when they were happening but the way it was done would have made it VERY possible for someone with a gun to take out at least one of the terrorists, possibly more. Like I said earlier, if concealed carry was a thing in France the Paris attacks would not have happened the way they did, they would have been done the same way mass shootings are done in America (firing into a crowd) which probably would have resulted in a lower body count, that or through bombing.
OwO wat's dis?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
Firearm Ownership and Suicide Rates Among US Men and Women, 1981..
s-senpai... my sources are moving on their own
Or, you know, if we pretend for a moment that some of the people had carried weapons on their own, what do you really think the chance is that they would've heroically attempted to fight the well armed and drug-boosted terrorists, instead of, y'know, just trying keep themselves alive?
Where does this idea of armed citizens bravely standing against terrorists equipped with assault rifles even come from? I will dare say that most peoples first instinct would not be to engage
them, but to hide and defend only themselves. When you're fighting for your very survival, it's not exactly unusual for people to look to themselves first.
Problem: Criminals keep stealing lawfully owned property from law abiding citizens.
Solution: Confiscate said property from citizens ahead of time so it can't be stolen.
🤔
If you have a better solution to lower US criminal firearm ownership to France level that doesn't impact legal gun owners in the slightest, go ahead and help yourself.
In the meantime, keep your shit out of my country, we don't need it. It would make citizens less safe, not more.
I never said it wasnt easier to kill yourself with a gun, 51% of suicides are done via guns and 2/3 of gun deaths are from suicides.
My point was that suicide isnt soley committed with guns and their presence definitely doesnt just cause suicide, it makes it easier.
It doesn't matter if the terrorists had assault rifles, all someone would have to do would be to catch them off guard. From what I read the terrorists were not wearing body armor (although you could argue they would have been if people in France had concealed carry). In a situation where terrorists are executing people one after another and there's no knowing if you'll be next, it is very likely that someone would have tried to shoot back.
Dumbshits wanting to play cowboy.
Can bet you a million that half the people who spout this shit would probably bolt at the sight of a man with a gun.
A pretty ambitious goal, one which I honestly doubt the US will attain in our lifetimes.
In the meantime, your criminals will continue to be more armed and more dangerous than ours. I don't see why we'd want to copy your model. Suggesting that arming France will make it safer is just retarded, plain and simple.
If access to guns directly leads to an increase in successful suicides, it's a cause of successful suicide.
Events generally have several causes. Just because gun ownership didn't cause the depression that eventually led to suicide doesn't mean it isn't part of the causes. If a suicide happened and wouldn't have without access to a gun, then access to that gun was one of the causes of the suicide.
I don't care if your country wants guns (you have loads tho). That's not my business. But for as much as you like the "keep ur shit out of my country" line, you sure like to tell us how to run our country.
Really I'm disappointed. Last time we spoke you seemed to have developed a more nuanced understanding of the issue. But all you took away from it was "ban all guns xd ameriga suck"
Trump is an idiot and I'm not really shocked by him saying stupid shit in international diplomacy anymore.
Maybe, if it was a movie. I can tell you I have no desire of owning a gun for whatever, and would never try to play the hero if I were in some sort of hostage situation. The likelihood of a crime like this suddenly happening is low enough that I don't need to worry about my safety or be armed. This sort of thing is an outlier.
Please point out, in this thread, where the fuck I said how the US should handle their gun issues? Read my posts again and you'll notice my perspective statements solely apply to France.
Maybe you ought to properly read what you're responding to before you come in and go off on an off-topic tangent. The only time I mentioned the US was to illustrate the fact that more legal gun ownership leads to more criminal gun ownership, the denial of which is delusional.
You were the one who barged in to beat your 2A drums whining about ~confiscating law abiding citizen's guns~ which is utterly irrelevant to my discourse.
But yeah your strawmanning of my point using poorly spelled phrases and dumb emotes really makes you look like the most mature and nuanced of us two.
Both the post I replied to and your reply to mine reference US law directly. I'm also not registering what is giving you the idea that I was making any implications about whose situation is better.
Where did I mention 2A? Last time I mentioned 2A on these forums I said it was irrelevant. Who is beating drums here?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.